SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 861

Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 3387 of 2021
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJIB BANERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Parties : Logeshwar Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government, Public (Human Rights) Department, Chennai & Others
Date of Judgment : 27-04-2021

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:A. Sirajudeen, Senior Counsel, K. Jaisankar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, Vijay Narayan, Advocate-General assisted by V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, State Government Pleader.

Point of Law: Provisions of Section 21 and 22 of the Act of 1993, the present incumbent need not be disturbed as he has not been issued notice.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 - Sections 22, 16(1) and 22(1) – Appointment for Post of chairperson - Writ of Declaration - Human Rights Commission - Petitioner says office of Chairman of State Human Rights Commission is an office under State within meaning of Article 16(1) of Constitution - Petitioner asserts to fill up such post, eligible persons should have been given an opportunity to apply therefor and should have been considered on merits - State Human Rights Commission would be the Chief Minister, Speaker of Legislative Assembly - Minister in-charge of Department of Home in State and Leader of Opposition in Legislative Assembly - If a State has a Legislative Council - Chairperson of such Council and the Leader of Opposition in Council are also ex-officio members of Selection Committee - Process of appointment involves consultation between members of Selection Committee and majority decision of Selection Committee will prevail as long as person appointed fills eligibility criteria indicated in Section 21 read with parts of Section 22 of Act

Finding of the court: Principal grievance of petitioner appears to be post was not advertised - Apart from statute does not require any advertisement, in case, there is an exalted Selection Committee is ordained by statute and it is not an ordinary process of selection - Minister of Home and Leader of Opposition would choose an appropriate person to be appointed as Chairperson or others as Members of the State Commission - crucial posts where appointments are primarily made by invitation - Selection Committee may discuss such names as they may choose and even if there is no advertisement issued, process cannot be flawed - Counter-affidavit of the State - present incumbent need not be disturbed as he has not been issued notice

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed and closed

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the G.O.(Ms.) No.701 dated 30.12.2020 issued by the 1st respondent appointing the 3rd respondent to the post of chairperson in the 2nd respondent commission as null and void, unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary exercise of powers on the part of the 1st respondent and consequently direct the 1st respondent to invite all eligible and suitable persons to offer their candidature and consider their merit on a rational basis and appoint the most suitable person.)

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ.

1. The writ petition is utterly misconceived and no further time be wasted thereon. These frivolous matters tend to take up substantial Court time and, more often than not, counsel furthering hopeless causes tend to dilate and seek to rely on judgments that may have no bearing on the issue at hand.

2. The petitioner says that the office of the Chairman of the State Human Rights Commission is an office under the State within the meaning of Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner asserts that to fill up such post, all eligible persons should have been given an opportunity to apply therefor and should have been considered on merits.

3. Under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Chairpersons of State Human Rights Commissions were usually retired Chief Justices of High Courts, but pursuant to an amendment effected on August 2, 2019, the Chairperson of a State Human Rights Commission may now be a Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court. It is not necessary that the Chairperson of the State Human Rights Commission must have been a Chief Justice or Judge of that State itself.

4. The key provision pertaining to the appointment of the Chairperson and the Members of the State Commission is Section 22 of the Act of 1993. Section 22(1) mandates that the Selection Committee for the purpose of selecting the Chairperson and the members of the State Human Rights Commission would be the Chief Minister, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Minister in-charge of the Department of Home in that State and the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly. However, if a State has a Legislative Council, the Chairperson of such Council and the Leader of the Opposition in the Council are also ex-officio members of the Selection Committee. The Chief Minister of the State is the Chairperson of the Selection Committee.

5. Thus, the process of appointment involves consultation between the members of the Selection Committee and the majority decision of the Selection Committee will prevail as long as the person appointed fills the eligibility criteria indicated in Section 21 read with parts of Section 22 of the Act.

6. Loosely speaking, a Chairperson maybe a Chief Justice or a Judge of any High Court and may also be appointed before he has demitted office as Judge, subject to the permission of the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court being obtained. However, such provision does not imply that a sitting Judge of a Court continues to remain a sitting Judge of such Court while taking up duties as the Chairperson or a member of a State Human Rights Commission. What the relevant provision means is that at the time of appointment, if the relevant person is a sitting Judge, he may be appointed with the permission of his Chief Justice. The Act is silent as to the assumption of office in the Human Rights Commission by a sitting Judge; but it goes without saying that a person cannot be a High Court Judge and the Chairperson or a Member of the Human Rights Commission simultaneously.

7. The principal grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the post was not advertised. Apart from the fact that the statute does not require any advertisement, in this case, there is an exalted Selection Committee which is ordained by the statute and it is not an ordinary process of selection. The Chief Minister of a State, in consultation with the Speaker o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top